I agree we should avoid changing the meaning of existing attributes
entirely, but I have a compromise that I think would be beneficial.
To start I don't think we should be adding entire citations within an
attribute as many citations are actually more than one line, with
very specific rules for formatting (MLA,APA,etc.), which would be
complicated by the requirements for the content of attributes.
Instead I propose adding a "for" attribute to the <q> element in the
same manner as the <label> element now such that the <q> element
"for" attribute would point to a local citation in the current
document using the id as the reference target.
Example:
<q for="us-libcong-act1" src="http://www.archives.gov/docs/
constitution.html#a1">
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
</q>
<cite id="us-libcong-act1">
United States
The Constitution, Article 1
<a href="http://www.archives.gov/docs/constitution.html#a1">http://
www.archives.gov/docs/constitution.html#a1</a>
</cite>
This would allow authors to implement formalized references to
quotations and sources within the same document and link directly to
the local citation. Places like Wikipedia and technical documents
would benefit from being able to the bind the two resources together
within the document. Its also backwards compatible since the "for"
attribute did not exist for <q> previously. More over it lets us
express document metadata in a visible manner to the user instead of
hiding it in attributes as with the previous suggested change for the
"cite" attribute.
Benefits:
- This type of linking is already defined for <label> to <inputs>
referencing.
- Entire citation is visible to the user even in legacy UAs.
- Degrades gracefully since there was no meaning for the "for"
attribute on <q> previously.
- Allows for proper formatting of the citation within the document
as defined by the citation style.
Note:
A same extension should be provided for the <blockquote> element.
- Elliott
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote, quote:
>>> This is gratuitously incompatible with HTML4.01, where the Q
>>> element's CITE attribute is a URI. I don't think "harmony"
>>> justifies breaking compatibility.
>> unquote
>>
>> aloha, maciej - i wouldn't classify it as breaking compatibility,
>> but as fixing an error in the 4.01 technical recommendation.
>
> Whether it is an error or not seems like a matter of taste, but it
> clearly does break compatibility.
>
>> if SRC is used to point to a target, everywhere else but in the
>> Q element, wouldn't you consider that more than a lack of harmony,
>> but an error?
>
> Actually, most places that point to a linked resource which is not
> embedded use HREF, not SRC.
>
>> as long as there exists a CITE element, why not bring the cite
>> attribute defined for Q in line with the meaning of CITE as
>> expressed by the element named CITE.
>>
>> this isn't trivial nitpicking, it's identifying an error and
>> attempting to address it,
>
> Error or not, we need to remain compatible.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>